On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>
>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or accelerating
>>>>> or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady 70mph on a
>>>>> motorway that it does around town at a far lower average speed. *But*
>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at a
>>>>> constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>
>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>> speed/direction.
>>>
>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>> balls of steel though.
>>
>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast reflexes.
>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>
>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>
>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>
> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>

They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.

https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/

More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the
time, as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.

Paul

On 17/09/2023 11:04, GB wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 10:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> That's one of the reasons I like to run with an excess of horsepower.
>> 50-100mph in a couple of seconds
>
> Taking you more literally than you intended, I don't think there are
> many production cars that could manage that - a McLaren F1 does 60-100
> in 3.1s, for example.
>
>
its about 11 seconds in reality, but the more typical sort of 50-60
figure is a second and a bit

-
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 17/09/2023 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:

>
> I presume many have found a way around the limiters then? Many travel well
> in excess of that speed.
>

Except when one is attempting to leave a motorway and left hand lane is
nose to tail with HGVs travelling at 30mph :)

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/09/2023 11:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 10:13, Theo wrote:
> mile from the aircon.
>>
>> A car a/c compressor consumes about 2 kW.
>
> Why does it consume so much? In a house, a 2kW air conditioner will
> easily cool a room of 40 - 50m^3 without problem. A car's interior will
> be a tenth of that, so is a car's a/c just inefficient?
>
It's insulation is. It's massive thermal gain from all those single
glazed windows, too...and requirements for ventilation mena thatthe
internal air is recycled pretty ofetn

5 people in a large room need as much air intake as 5 people in a car.

In reality I dont know for what percentage of the time the average
aircon compressor is actually on.

Watching you tube videos of a Florida mechanic suggests that in Florida
in summer its 100% to try and keep the cabin relatively cool when its up
at 40°C outside . Aircon servicing is a major part of what he does.

Conversely yesterday at 25°C I would suspect its less than 20% of the time.

That might equate to only around 600W average. (less than a bhp)

I do remember some years ago driving a pathetic little automatic
belonging to the GF of the time with a 1300 or 1600 engine and you could
feel the compressor kick the effect, but my land rovers and jaguars are
heavy enough to make it fairly undetectable...

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 17/09/2023 11:01, Bob Henson wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 16/09/2023 23:57, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 16/09/2023 22:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> It occurred to me today, having finally got the aircon fixed, that
>>>> aircon introduces another dimensions into MPG calculations.
>>>>
>>>> It is generally reckoned that a car with windows closed has less drag
>>>> than one with them open, but adding aircon adds a *constant* power
>>>> drain, irrespective of car speed.
>>>>
>>>> Which means for best MPG you want to travel *faster* with aircon, than
>>>> without it. In order to shorten journey times and hence energy loss
>>>> per mile from the aircon.
>>>
>>> The general rule of thumb used to be - below 40mph, open windows are
>>> more efficient than aircon and above 40mph it is the other way around.
>>>
>> That sounds about right for a 20 year old car...
>>
>> I wonder if it holds today.
>>
>> Anyone else remember air brakes aka 'quarter lights'
>
> For those of us stupid enough to drive whilst smoking (mea culpa) they were
> a godsend. I only partially excuse myself on the grounds that a) everyone
> did it and b) the roads were relatively empty then.
>

Until you have steered with your knees while your two hands were rolling
a spliff, you really aren't an experienced driver.

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 17/09/2023 11:16, Jeff Layman wrote:
> About 35 years ago I was driving a hire car in Hawaii, and getting used
> to the aircon. The outside temp was around 30°, so I had it on pretty
> high. Rather unexpectedly, the windscreen started steaming up, so I
> turned the car ventilation airflow to the maximum demisting position.
> The demisting got worse very quickly, so I tried wiping the windscreen
> with my hand. It made absolutely no difference, and then the penny
> dropped. I turned the windscreen wipers on and the screen became
> instantly clear. The aircon was so cold that it had cooled the
> windscreen glass down, and with the high humidity outside the
> condensation was on that side of the screen!

I remember driving up from Hamburg to Denmark in freezing fog. The
windscreen washers froze and the vertical whip aerial acquired a glazing
of ice. And yet the temperature was above zero. Evaporation of in the
one case alcohol in the screenwash and in the second presumably water
from the fog allowed a temperature drop to freeze the nozzles and the
ice on the aerial.

I remember aircon at 35°C and 100% RH too at Chichen Itza. A life saver.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 17/09/2023 11:29, Paul wrote:
> On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or accelerating
>>>>>> or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady 70mph on a
>>>>>> motorway that it does around town at a far lower average speed. *But*
>>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at a
>>>>>> constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>>> speed/direction.
>>>>
>>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>>> balls of steel though.
>>>
>>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast reflexes.
>>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>>
>>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>>
>>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>>
>> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>>
>
> They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.
>
> https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/
>
> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the
> time, as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>
I cant recall whether I have that or not.

There is a button marked ASL..but that is simply a speed limiter.
Fucking dangerous as it cuts your options in half in an emergency

> Paul
>
>

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 17/09/2023 11:38, alan_m wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:
>
>>
>> I presume many have found a way around the limiters then? Many travel
>> well
>> in excess of that speed.
>>
>
> Except when one is attempting to leave a motorway and left hand lane is
> nose to tail with HGVs travelling at 30mph :)
>

Mm. That's when a little fore thought and planning comes into play. I
generally start to plan a busy dual carriageway exist *at least* a mile
ahead. Use of maxium rabbit on the welly foot is sometimes indicated to
get to the head of the queue before the turnoff.

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 17/09/2023 10:57, Bob Henson wrote:

> It is only the recent fuel price increases that have persuaded me to ever
> turn mine off, and then not very often. A nice cool, ventilated car is
> about the biggest contribution to safety on the roads that one can make.

+1
Being comfortable in the car whilst driving make fo safer driving

As
> you remark, demisting on a damp winter's morning takes a fraction of the
> time with the aircon left on. I often wish some of the morons who drive off
> with one tiny hole in the condensation on their windscreens knew that.

It may be that when directing the air flow to the screen the air con
automatically switches on to dry the incoming air.
On my previous car, a 2001 Ford Focus, this was implemented and fully
described in the one of the manuals BUT the air con dash light never
came on in this mode.
That car also had a heated front windscreen :)

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/09/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Watching you tube videos of a Florida mechanic suggests that in Florida
> in summer its 100% to try and keep the cabin relatively cool when its up
> at 40°C outside . Aircon servicing is a major part of what he does.

But most of the American cars he services seem to have 5+ litre engines :)

He serviced a Flux Capacitor the other day, jokingly, during an oil
change on one of the DeLoreans used in the Back to the Future films.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 17/09/2023 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Anyone else remember air brakes aka 'quarter lights'

Still have them on one car

On 17/09/2023 11:55, alan_m wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 10:57, Bob Henson wrote:
>
>> It is only the recent fuel price increases that have persuaded me to ever
>> turn mine off, and then not very often. A nice cool, ventilated car is
>> about the biggest contribution to safety on the roads that one can make.
>
> +1
> Being comfortable in the car whilst driving make fo safer driving
>
>
> As
>> you remark, demisting on a damp winter's morning takes a fraction of the
>> time with the aircon left on. I often wish some of the morons who
>> drive off
>> with one tiny hole in the condensation on their windscreens knew that.
>
> It may be that when directing the air flow to the screen the air con
> automatically switches on to dry the incoming air.
> On my previous car, a 2001 Ford Focus, this was implemented and fully
> described in the one of the manuals BUT the air con dash light never
> came on in this mode.
> That car also had a heated front windscreen :)
>
I am fairly happy with the button marked 'auto' on the climate control
system. There are a pair of buttons with front and rear screen heaters
attached, and some manual overrides but in general the system
understands full heat PLUS aircon to de humidify the screen

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 17/09/2023 12:06, alan_m wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Watching you tube videos of a Florida mechanic suggests that in
>> Florida in summer its 100% to try and keep the cabin relatively cool
>> when its up at 40°C outside . Aircon servicing is a major part of what
>> he does.
>
> But most of the American cars he services seem to have 5+ litre engines :)

Indeed, but look at the mileage.
USA has huge distances, and cheap fuel. A BIG torquey slow revving
engine LASTS.

Even if it only gets 18mpg.

>
> He serviced a Flux Capacitor the other day, jokingly, during an oil
> change on one of the DeLoreans used in the Back to the Future films.
>
I know. I watch it regularly. He is a good comedian and his wife is sweet.
>

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H.L.Mencken

On 17/09/2023 11:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/09/2023 23:20, alan_m wrote:
>>>> On 16/09/2023 23:09, Roger Mills wrote:
>>>> . *But* just to
>>>>> emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at a constant
>>>>> 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>
>>>> On many UK motorways travelling at a constant 60 usually means a HGV in
>>>> front of you, A HGV up your arse and a HGV beside you for the miles it
>>>> takes it to overtake at 60.05 mph. :)
>>>>
>>> On a UK motorway  HGVs are mechanically limited to *56mph* (90km/h).
>>>
>>> The fact that it looks like 60mph to you is because 99.999% o9f all
>>> speedometers read about 7% too high.
>>>
>>> The process of one overtaking the other  I call the "Commercial
>>> Two-Step"
>>>
>>> (quick quick slow slow)
>>
>> I presume many have found a way around the limiters then? Many travel
>> well
>> in excess of that speed.
>
> Not the class to which that diktat applies. It is literally more than
> their job is worth with tachographs etc.
>
> I know for a fact that coaches are not so limited.
>
> Another factoid that not many people know is that goods vehicles (LCVs)o
> are limited to 50mph on single lane roads. Not 60mph.
>
> And 60mph on motorways.  So that is basically 'vans not derived from a car'

No, its 60 on dual carriageways and 70 on motorways.

The rules are rather complicated for commercial vehicles that are able
to use car speed limits.

<snip>

> Another advantage of Brexit would be to allow commercial traffic to
> disable these on UK roads, thereby getting rid of the agonising road
> blocks they cause.

That'll only happen in your dreams.

Are you aware that the UK government of the day agreed to these EU rules
and didn't veto the EU directive?

If you have a Samsung recent smart tv, look at the Myth Buster channel.
There was an episode of this show that did the very experiment you mention
of fuel consumption with windows open aircon off and windows closed air con
on. Of course it could not tackle variables like traffic jams.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ue567r$8pt$3@dont-email.me...
> It occurred to me today, having finally got the aircon fixed, that aircon
> introduces another dimensions into MPG calculations.
>
> It is generally reckoned that a car with windows closed has less drag than
> one with them open, but adding aircon adds a *constant* power drain,
> irrespective of car speed.
>
> Which means for best MPG you want to travel *faster* with aircon, than
> without it. In order to shorten journey times and hence energy loss per
> mile from the aircon.
>
>
>
> --
> "A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
> who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
> "We did this ourselves."
>
> ? Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 17/09/2023 13:29, Fredxx wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 11:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 10:44, Bob Henson wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/09/2023 23:20, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> On 16/09/2023 23:09, Roger Mills wrote:
>>>>> . *But* just to
>>>>>> emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at a
>>>>>> constant
>>>>>> 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> On many UK motorways travelling at a constant 60 usually means a
>>>>> HGV in
>>>>> front of you, A HGV up your arse and a HGV beside you for the miles it
>>>>> takes it to overtake at 60.05 mph. :)
>>>>>
>>>> On a UK motorway  HGVs are mechanically limited to *56mph* (90km/h).
>>>>
>>>> The fact that it looks like 60mph to you is because 99.999% o9f all
>>>> speedometers read about 7% too high.
>>>>
>>>> The process of one overtaking the other  I call the "Commercial
>>>> Two-Step"
>>>>
>>>> (quick quick slow slow)
>>>
>>> I presume many have found a way around the limiters then? Many travel
>>> well
>>> in excess of that speed.
>>
>> Not the class to which that diktat applies. It is literally more than
>> their job is worth with tachographs etc.
>>
>> I know for a fact that coaches are not so limited.
>>
>> Another factoid that not many people know is that goods vehicles
>> (LCVs)o are limited to 50mph on single lane roads. Not 60mph.
>>
>> And 60mph on motorways.  So that is basically 'vans not derived from a
>> car'
>
> No, its 60 on dual carriageways and 70 on motorways.
>
> The rules are rather complicated for commercial vehicles that are able
> to use car speed limits.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Another advantage of Brexit would be to allow commercial traffic to
>> disable these on UK roads, thereby getting rid of the agonising road
>> blocks they cause.
>
> That'll only happen in your dreams.
>
> Are you aware that the UK government of the day agreed to these EU rules
> and didn't veto the EU directive?
>
>
The UK government of the day was absolutely committed to remaining in
the EU.

But a future one might not be.

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 06:29:54 -0400, Paul wrote:

> On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or
>>>>>> accelerating or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady
>>>>>> 70mph on a motorway that it does around town at a far lower average
>>>>>> speed. *But*
>>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at
>>>>>> a constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>>> speed/direction.
>>>>
>>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>>> balls of steel though.
>>>
>>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast
>>> reflexes.
>>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>>
>>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>>
>>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>>
>> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>>
>>
> They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.
>
> https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/
>
> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the time,
> as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.

Yeah, well.

My Citroen had that. Only it would rely on reducing acceleration and gear
braking (it was an auto). Worked "OK". Right up until the point where it
would give up and leave the car to coast into whatever was slowing down
in front.

To be fair, it would "ping".

As I have said to anyone who will listen, despite wanting a cruise
control since I drove in the US, the only thing I use is it's speed
limiter feature. Which was an absolute must-have when I changed cars 2
years ago. Much to the puzzlement of sales staff.

On 9/17/2023 11:20 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 06:29:54 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or
>>>>>>> accelerating or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady
>>>>>>> 70mph on a motorway that it does around town at a far lower average
>>>>>>> speed. *But*
>>>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at
>>>>>>> a constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>>>> speed/direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>>>> balls of steel though.
>>>>
>>>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast
>>>> reflexes.
>>>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>>>
>>>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>>>
>>>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>>>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>>>
>>> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>>>
>>>
>> They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.
>>
>> https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/
>>
>> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
>> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the time,
>> as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>
> Yeah, well.
>
> My Citroen had that. Only it would rely on reducing acceleration and gear
> braking (it was an auto). Worked "OK". Right up until the point where it
> would give up and leave the car to coast into whatever was slowing down
> in front.
>
> To be fair, it would "ping".
>
> As I have said to anyone who will listen, despite wanting a cruise
> control since I drove in the US, the only thing I use is it's speed
> limiter feature. Which was an absolute must-have when I changed cars 2
> years ago. Much to the puzzlement of sales staff.
>

As far as I know, for regular cars, that's all it can do, is
engine-brake to modulate the speed. I don't think it's tied
into the braking system. As you say, it should "ping" and
let go, in situations of a sudden deceleration.

There can be features on a car that can do more than that,
but... perhaps not in a reliable way. Not everyone names
their features the same way, which is part of the problem.

One of the reasons I don't use cruise in a car, is I need
the adrenaline rush of driving, to keep me awake.

Paul

On 17/09/2023 18:50, Paul wrote:

>> As I have said to anyone who will listen, despite wanting a cruise
>> control since I drove in the US, the only thing I use is it's speed
>> limiter feature. Which was an absolute must-have when I changed cars 2
>> years ago. Much to the puzzlement of sales staff.
>>
>
> As far as I know, for regular cars, that's all it can do, is
> engine-brake to modulate the speed. I don't think it's tied
> into the braking system. As you say, it should "ping" and
> let go, in situations of a sudden deceleration.
>
> There can be features on a car that can do more than that,
> but... perhaps not in a reliable way. Not everyone names
> their features the same way, which is part of the problem.
>
> One of the reasons I don't use cruise in a car, is I need
> the adrenaline rush of driving, to keep me awake.

Cruise control on a motorway works best if the car(s) in front are going
the speed you want to go. I find it very difficult, with manual control
or cruise control, to maintain a steady 70 (or whatever speed I want to
do) because the car in front may slow down below the speed you want to
go, and once you determine that fact, you can guarantee that the great
long gap in the next lane to your right into which you would pull to
overtake, has suddenly become crammed with cars, so you end up having to
slow down to wait for a gap. Or else you take the opportunity to pull
into it early, and then spend ages while you gradually overtake the cars
which are going maybe 5-10 mph slower than your chosen speed. My
preferred driving style, assuming no traffic in the next lane on the
right, is to get fairly close to the slower car ahead and then pull out,
so I'm not hogging Lane 2 for *too* long.

In theory, if everyone used cruise control and everyone chose to drive
at the speed limit, there should be no need to overtake - apart from
overtaking the lorries which are limited to less than 70 or are
struggling up a slight incline.

On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 11:51:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
>> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
>> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the time,
>> as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>>
> I cant recall whether I have that or not.
>
> There is a button marked ASL..but that is simply a speed limiter.
> Fucking dangerous as it cuts your options in half in an emergency
>

Just push your foot down hard. On mine, I assume on many others, that
hits a switch that disables the limiter and off you zoom...

nib

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/09/2023 10:13, Theo wrote: mile from the aircon.
> >
> > A car a/c compressor consumes about 2 kW.
>
> Why does it consume so much? In a house, a 2kW air conditioner will easily
> cool a room of 40 - 50m^3 without problem. A car's interior will be a
> tenth of that, so is a car's a/c just inefficient?
>
I discovered recently on a couple of hot days that with the climate control
on the petrol consumption increased greatly *unless* the system was set to
recirculate. Otherwise you are cooling *all* the air from outside
temperatures to the temperature you want inside. You don't do that in a
house unless you leave the doors and windows wide open.

--
braind

On 9/17/2023 7:45 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 12:06, alan_m wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Watching you tube videos of a Florida mechanic suggests that in Florida in summer its 100% to try and keep the cabin relatively cool when its up at 40°C outside . Aircon servicing is a major part of what he does.
>>
>> But most of the American cars he services seem to have 5+ litre engines :)
>
> Indeed, but look at the mileage.
> USA has huge distances, and cheap fuel. A BIG torquey slow revving engine LASTS.
>
> Even if it only gets 18mpg.
>

The 5 liter, are red meat for certain purposes. These people
buy their jugs of milk at the corner store, in 5 liter pails as well.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/the-10-cheapest-new-cars-with-v-8-engines/

For the following article, click the picture in the middle of the page,
then use the left-right cursor keys, to move the frame left or right.

These too are red meat articles, the Cadillac products being closer to mainstream.
But these aren't all from the same market segment. Some are too expensive to be sold
in any quantity. These are in six liter country.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g21784022/supersize-me-the-16-largest-displacement-engines-you-can-buy-today/

The engines are gradually getting smaller, because they have turbo on them.

As an example, a product was announced within the past week, that
is "3 cylinder, 300 HP", which is not what you expect from a three
cylinder car. You expect 75HP and a tiny cabin. And to please the
kids who buy such stuff, it has a nice "tone" at idle. So it gurgles
or whatever. That's not enough horsepower for everyone, but the
car doesn't have a large curb weight either.

*******

This is what the poor people buy. The power trains on the two
offerings are entirely different. The cheap one, you're relying
on the power train warranty. The Ecoboost, you're buying the
vehicle to keep it (since the implementation is conventional).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Maverick_%282022%29

If you buy the F150, you're in blue sky country, price-wise.

The middle class in the USA is kinda hollowed out, and it's
hard to say why all the marketing is for the $100K vehicles.
Yes, there is a better profit margin on them (F150 options for example).
But the volume might not be there to keep the company afloat,
if you price higher than the customers can afford. What I was
hearing in a web comment section was "length of bank loan == X years"
for the more expensive offerings. Once the loan length passes 5 years,
peoples eyes glaze over. Too risky then. The loan period is getting
too close to the end of the power train warranty.

*******

As for the engines themselves, there are a few that do a decent
job on miles per gallon. But many of them offer mediocre fuel
economy. And it's been like that, for quite a few years too.
This isn't a recent thing.

Paul

On 17/09/2023 16:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
> As I have said to anyone who will listen, despite wanting a cruise
> control since I drove in the US, the only thing I use is it's speed
> limiter feature. Which was an absolute must-have when I changed cars 2
> years ago. Much to the puzzlement of sales staff.

I think it rather depends on whether your desire is to slavishly obey
speed limits or simply avoid points on your licence.

Cruise control works for me to keep me on the limit, there or
thereabouts, with opportunities to brake and accelerate should I see fit.

The guy who slams on the brakes in front to turn left and THEN
indicates, who really needs overtaking NOW to avoid an accident would
need full throttle with ASL.

Cruise control is an assistance: ASL is an imposition.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 17/09/2023 18:50, Paul wrote:
> On 9/17/2023 11:20 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 06:29:54 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/17/2023 5:52 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 10:14:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/09/2023 09:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:38:09 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <kmmnd0Fce40U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Mills
>>>>>>> <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The best way of saving fuel is to travel for long distances at a
>>>>>>>> constant speed without a lot of starting and stopping or
>>>>>>>> accelerating or braking. My car achieves far better MPG at a steady
>>>>>>>> 70mph on a motorway that it does around town at a far lower average
>>>>>>>> speed. *But*
>>>>>>>> just to emphasise the point made above, it does far better still at
>>>>>>>> a constant 60pmh - all with the aircon on all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Momentary idle thought.. presumably lines of traffic travelling at
>>>>>>> similar speeds will create local air flows not linked to wind
>>>>>>> speed/direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you really want to save fuel, you'd slipstream an HGV ... needs
>>>>>> balls of steel though.
>>>>>
>>>>> And brakes at least better than the HGVs...and lightning fast
>>>>> reflexes.
>>>>> Basically you can drive a reaction time away from the HGV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any loss of concentration could be a disaster though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to do it back in the day, but these days I leave the longest
>>>>> possible gap to traffic ahead.
>>>>
>>>> That's one of the things a semi autonomous car could do ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They already do that. Adaptive Cruise Control.
>>>
>>> https://mycardoeswhat.org/deeper-learning/adaptive-cruise-control/
>>>
>>> More than one model and brand does that. It doesn't steer for you,
>>> and it just avoids the nuisance of disengaging the cruise all the time,
>>> as the driver in front does the speed-yoyo.
>>
>> Yeah, well.
>>
>> My Citroen had that. Only it would rely on reducing acceleration and gear
>> braking (it was an auto). Worked "OK". Right up until the point where it
>> would give up and leave the car to coast into whatever was slowing down
>> in front.
>>
>> To be fair, it would "ping".
>>
>> As I have said to anyone who will listen, despite wanting a cruise
>> control since I drove in the US, the only thing I use is it's speed
>> limiter feature. Which was an absolute must-have when I changed cars 2
>> years ago. Much to the puzzlement of sales staff.
>>
>
> As far as I know, for regular cars, that's all it can do, is
> engine-brake to modulate the speed. I don't think it's tied
> into the braking system. As you say, it should "ping" and
> let go, in situations of a sudden deceleration.
>
> There can be features on a car that can do more than that,
> but... perhaps not in a reliable way. Not everyone names
> their features the same way, which is part of the problem.
>
> One of the reasons I don't use cruise in a car, is I need
> the adrenaline rush of driving, to keep me awake.
>
Oh, the M25 will do that with or without cruise control

I find it a handy way along with my satnav to keep me inside speed
limits *without having to look at the speedo*. Which IS dangerous/.

> Paul

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 18/09/2023 04:03, Paul wrote:

> As an example, a product was announced within the past week, that
> is "3 cylinder, 300 HP", which is not what you expect from a three
> cylinder car. You expect 75HP and a tiny cabin. And to please the
> kids who buy such stuff, it has a nice "tone" at idle. So it gurgles
> or whatever. That's not enough horsepower for everyone, but the
> car doesn't have a large curb weight either.

Ford in UK/Europe have a 1 litre 3 cylinder engine with turbo rated at
155bhp - also de-rated to 125 and 90 bhp depending on car model/variant.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk